Is the 40 done?
- Thread starter Creek Henry
- Start date
PatientWolf
New member
I’d say it’s far from dead. I’d like to thank those who think it is as it means I can get ammo for about $9/box of 50.
As far as 9/.40/.45, none is the “ultimate”. All are good and offer different benefits.
To me the .357 Mag represents the best cartridge as it can easily be loaded anywhere from light target to hot and hard.
Lightly loaded it allows target practice all day long without any stress and is also capable of taking deer sized game effectively and responsibly. That’s not something I would say about 9/.40/.45 (YMMV).
As far as 9/.40/.45, none is the “ultimate”. All are good and offer different benefits.
To me the .357 Mag represents the best cartridge as it can easily be loaded anywhere from light target to hot and hard.
Lightly loaded it allows target practice all day long without any stress and is also capable of taking deer sized game effectively and responsibly. That’s not something I would say about 9/.40/.45 (YMMV).
J.G. Terry
New member
A future dance...
It's an ongoing wonderment with me how driven American shooters are by the gun rags. I'd bet in ten years, maybe less, we'll see the guru's do their thing. The forgotten powerhouse passed up by history will be the theme. A half dozen new handguns will be introduced. Ammo will start to appear in big boxes. Prices will soar. Used guns will come out of the woodwork as the price increases with demand. Let's see what happens. I could care less about ammo in the store. Forty is just another caliber for me to reload.
It's an ongoing wonderment with me how driven American shooters are by the gun rags. I'd bet in ten years, maybe less, we'll see the guru's do their thing. The forgotten powerhouse passed up by history will be the theme. A half dozen new handguns will be introduced. Ammo will start to appear in big boxes. Prices will soar. Used guns will come out of the woodwork as the price increases with demand. Let's see what happens. I could care less about ammo in the store. Forty is just another caliber for me to reload.
BillSussman
New member
Most cops I know aren't into guns as a hobby and only shoot once a year to keep their qualification.
Cosmodragoon
New member
Regardless of how often they practice or care, police and other law enforcement professionals tend to be the primary users and carriers of firearms in the public eye. I realize we are all different as individuals but a lot of people will take those professionals as the model. So what those professionals use, regardless of the actual reasons, can be a big driver of consumer trends.
scoobysnacker
New member
For .40 cal? I dunno, whenever I think of the HK line, I think of the SOCOM in .45. To me, the USP is just "one of those", the same way a Commander is still a 1911.
But I'm not all that knowledgeable on the HK's, you might be right.
I agree, if we add one word. Revised. The rise of the 40 was fueled by the FBI's revised protocols for penetration and expansion.
The FBI had their standards before the Miami shootout, and the 9mm they used met every single one. It was blessed, anointed, consecrated, and carried, as the best duty round.
Until it "failed" in the high profile Miami shootout. Except, the round didn't fail, it did everything it was spec'd to do. But in that one shootout, what it was spec'd to do wasn't quite enough. The real world is funny like that.
the FBI's response was to blame the 9mm round used. Not the shot placement (or the misses), not the unusual nature of the shootout, and not the abilities of any of the agents involved, they blamed the round as "inadequate".
And, they went and changed their required specs. They changed their "holy writ", and excommunicated the 9mm. And while struggling in purgatory with the 10mm, angels from on high (in this case Springfield Ma) delivered unto them the .40, and all was once again right with the world. For a while....
no, I do not. I think you are confusing me with one of the other magnum pistol enthusiasts. The only .40/.41 bore anything I own is a .410 shotgun.
My magnums are .35, .44, and .45 calibers.The .40 isn't done, isn't dead, isn't anything other than not being the new "wonder kid" anymore. Isn't for me, and never was, if it is for you, enjoy!
If a person is honest, they will also admit that:
"There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto"
http://looserounds.com/2014/09/21/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/
Is there potential for more damage? Of course. That's pretty much a given. The issue is that in practice, it just hasn't been possible to show that potential was providing any practical benefit.
IF a practical benefit in stopping power/terminal effect could be shown from going with the .40S&W, then it could be weighed objectively against the very obvious practical benefits of going to the 9mm. i.e. Reduced recoil (improved accuracy and speed), reduced training costs, reduced weapon wear, increased capacity, etc.
The problem is that no one has been able to demonstrate a practical benefit to staying with the .40S&W. It is, without question, more powerful and fires a bigger and heavier bullet, but in all the years (decades) it has been in common LE use, no one has been able to demonstrate a practically significant and consistent benefit in real world shootings.
So tell me, what makes more sense? Sticking with it because of a potential benefit, even at the cost of giving up the real-world, demonstrable benefits from switching? Or accepting the reality that in spite of real and prolonged efforts, no one has been able to come up with any hard evidence of a practical superiority in real-world shootings and making the objective decision to take advantage of the easily demonstrable benefits of switching?
The FBI went with door #2, and so have a lot of other LE organizations. Given the evidence available, it's pretty clearly the only logical solution.
But that absolutely won't kill the caliber any more than the .357Mag was killed when it fell out of popularity in LE or the .38Spl was killed when its use in LE became uncommon.
TruthTellers
New member
"In trouble" IMO, when it comes strictly to handgun calibers, is when major manufacturers are no longer producing pistols in the caliber, people are not shooting the caliber often enough (I'll say 250 rds a year as "enough"), and as a result ammo manufacturers are not producing or continuing to innovate new bullets or ammo for the caliber.
Thus, .22 Short, .25 ACP, 7.62x25 (sadly), .45 GAP, .25/.32 NAA, and others are either dead or in trouble. .357 Sig is on the fence, leaning towards being in trouble.
You make the case of treating it like a red light in either having stopped or slowed down and in the case of .40 it has slowed down, but the caliber remains strong enough and so many good guns are available at low prices and quality ammo available at prices still lower than .45 that the .40 will always have enough momentum to keep moving forward.
The other calibers I listed have completely run out of gas and the engine has fallen out while .357 Sig is misfiring and needs some TLC.
.40 is never going to be obsolete, not until every LE agency drops it as a service caliber. Even if they do, the supply of .40 pistols will be so huge that the inventory of them will be selling at Hi Point prices. So long as people buy the guns, they'll buy the ammo and ammo makers will keep making the ammo.
And as I said before, 10mm will keep the .40 around because .40 can be shot in 10mm guns.
Cosmodragoon
New member
Unfortunately, there are tons of variables in real-world shootings and data is quite limited. Definitively answering these questions about the difference between 9mm and .40 S&W would require very accurate real-time info about exactly how the rounds act from point of entry and exactly how they affect the body and mind of the attacker for the duration of the event. Video footage can be studied and various forensic data may be available but we need to understand the limitations of our knowledge here.
This is why we tend to infer from other media. For instance, gel is a good standardized material that can give us part of the picture. "Meat targets" are a fun and informative tool. All sorts of other media can be shot for comparison. Doing this, I do see a difference between 9mm and .40 S&W; and also with individual loads for each. I understand and accept that none of that is the same as a bad guy in the heat of the moment. I just have a more intuitive understanding of the overall physics as a result.
For good clean shots into center mass, or hits to clearly vital targets like the brain, I don't expect there to be a huge difference between similar projectile types in 9mm and .40 S&W. However, I think this takes over too much of the debate.
When I think about defensive encounters, informed by sources like "Active Self Protection" on YouTube; I tend to think about those encounters wherein outcomes are not dependent upon a vital stop. For instance, those horrific entangled affairs wherein you might be lucky to get your gun out and put one into an appendage, a pelvis, a gut, etc. In those cases, I at least feel more comfortable with .40 S&W based on how I've seen it behave in various media.
Although to a point, a number of manufacturers have produced new pistols in recent years without bothering to produce 40SW versions, or not bringing them out until some time later. A number of years ago and the 40SW was released alongside the 9mm.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Don Fischer
New member
I think the reason the 38/357 seem to be dying and probably are is because they don't come in an auto handgun. I have two auto handguns, both for carry. When I just want to go out and have some fun shooting handguns I take a DA, have three of them. I'm not a bug handgun nut! But it does seem to me that for carry the auto is better than the DA for no other reason than auto's carry more rounds and reload a lot faster. Comparing auto cartridges to revolver is pretty much apple's to oranges to me. How does the 40 stand up to the 44 mag? Not that I'd have a 44 mag either! Imagine a 44 auto mag as a carry gun!
They do come in an auto handgun. What they don't do is come in a small, light semi auto handgun. The main reason is NOT the pressure, its the physical size & length of the rounds. Comparatively speaking, all the regular semi auto pistol rounds are short.
Book says, top end loads in the .40 S&W throw a 180gr at about 1000fps
Same book says top end loads in the .44 Mag throw a 180gr at about 1600fps.
I have, and I did!
I think the "problem" of this or that round being "done" or dead, or dying, or failing, on its way out, obsolete, etc., is simply modern society's penchant for extremism. This attitude is huge in sports, and music, and is carried over into other areas, as well. If you aren't leading the pack (by sales, popularity, or what ever other yardstick you measure with), then you're "done", dying, gone, a has been, etc.
Anyone here like Elvis? The Beatles? Led Zeppelin? or any of the other bands or artists long gone, but their music endures?? See any parallels??
The 2014 article quoted from above...
http://looserounds.com/2014/09/21/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/
justifies the FBI move back to the 9mm, from the 40 S&W, based on the number of valid, and in my opinion, very good criteria. The criteria are so good that most armies and law enforcement around the world use the 9mm. The U.S. doing so from back in 1986.
It also cites one other reason that I quoted above because this one is not so good. Since the adoption of the current FBI protocol (which is a better, more rigorous and consistent protocol than any in the past) for bullet performance of law enforcement ammo of 12-18" of penetration with expansion in 10% ballistic gelatin, after passing through selected media, all defensive ammo intended for law enforcement must meet those criteria. This is regardless of bullet weight, caliber or energy. So that ammo performs to those specs. That's a true thing and no one should be surprised at that. But it does not mean that all calibers, bullet types, weights, power, are all the same in performance. It simply means that if you build bullets to meet a certain specific criteria they can perform to that level.
This is sometimes translated into the saying..."trauma surgeons can't tell the difference in wound tracks from one caliber to another".
OK, I don't know if that's true or not, but why would anyone expect them to be able to tell the difference? They aren't trained to do that and they don't have the equipment to measure that. It's also near impossible to tell a bullet from a 38 Spl. that expands from a 45 that does not if all you have to look at is a rough edged wound in living flesh. Can any doctor tell the difference between a hole in a body made by a .357 Magnum with a 158 gr. jhp bullet from a 9mm with a 115 gr. jhp, from a 38 spl. or for that matter a 45 acp. They can maybe guess but they can't measure that or judge by the wound track. There are too many variables. In fact better way to measure might be the meat targets made of rump roasts.
"There is no proof that one caliber, even if more powerful, performs better than another in real world shootings"
This is the wrong question. Rather it's a question designed to lead one astray.
The actual question is: does more power in a handgun bullet enhance ones ability to do meaningful damage in a gun fight and give one an edge in stopping a fight. The answer is yes.
Recently the U.S. Army adopted a number of new bullets and loads for the 9mm. They perform at pressures above +P and into +P+ territory.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/4/23/m1152-m1153-the-army-s-new-9-mm-luger-loads/
Why would the military do this? It's to enhance the potential effectiveness of the bullets with more power.
Why use +P or +P+ ammo in the 9mm at all if more power makes no difference?
The 40 S&W is a more powerful round than the 9mm. There is no argument about that. If the shooter can shoot the gun well, then more power is a useful option?
tipoc
Ultimately, this all boils down to: "No one has been able to demonstrate a practically significant benefit to using the .40S&W in real-world shootings."
The key is that it hasn't been for lack of trying. People have been trying to demonstrate the benefits of one caliber over other calibers for decades. They've looked at thousands of shootings and still the answer is the same. There are other variables that affect the outcome so much more strongly that there's no way to differentiate between the common service pistol calibers when trying to determine how terminal effect changes the outcome of real-world shootings.
Which is all well and good until we realize that even after trying very hard to do so for quite a long time, no one has been able show a correlation between the results inferred from other media testing of common service pistol calibers and the practical effects due to terminal ballistics on real-world shootings with those same calibers.
Again, the question comes down to this: How much weight do we put on an effect that NO ONE has been able to demonstrate in spite of decades of trying when we know that there are easily demonstrable benefits to switching?
You believe (and other people believe) that the answer is yes, but if there really were a definitive source who could demonstrate with hard evidence that the answer really was yes, we wouldn't be having this discussion and LE wouldn't be trending away from the .40S&W.
The fact is that no one has been able to prove the answer is really yes. They can "infer" that it might be yes from testing with other media, but when it comes down to actually demonstrating that it provides an edge in real-world shootings, the evidence just isn't there.
Since the article says the goal was to enhance the ability of the ammunition to penetrate deeply at longer distances, I'm going to go with that answer.
It's also worthwhile to keep in mind that the military is using ammunition that is very different from common LE issue/self-defense ammunition, and is likely far more concerned about performance against body armor.
If it costs you NOTHING, then yes, why not go with more power. If something is free, there's no need to prove that it's worth the cost.
But if it costs something, then the logical/rational approach is to see if what it costs is worth what you get in return. It's very easy to show what it costs. But even after thousands of shootings and considerable effort expended, no one has been able to show what it buys in terms of real-world shootings.
It makes no sense to pay for a benefit that can't be shown to actually exist. That's why the FBI gave up on the .40S&W and why LE is moving away from it in general.
It is apparent to me that this general idea steps on some folks' toes, but it's purely based on common sense.
If I told you to pay me $100 in return for a benefit, you would reasonably expect me to provide proof that the benefit existed. If I were unable to demonstrate the benefit, why would you pay me the $100? That's the situation we have here. The cost is clear, the benefit isn't. People can (and have) hand-waved the potential benefits, or inferred benefits, but when it comes down to rubber-meets-the-road proof, there just isn't any.
I think the main thing is the 9mm pistol can be loaded with more rounds the the 40 cal can and it recoils less, so most people (average people that don't shoot all that much) can shoot the 9mm quicker and more accurately.
The 9mm works better for a smaller sized gun. But when chambered in a full sized gun, my choice is the 40 over the 9, example Glock 17 vs 22. I own 2 or 3 of both and I will choose the 40 every time, personally. Drop on down to a 19 vs 23 then I would prefer the 9mm model 19 over the 23. But If I am going to drop down from a G22, I am just going to go ahead and go to a Smith and Wesson Shield or M&P Compact in 9mm.
But in all reality, I will more often than not, just split the difference and choose a Lightweight Commander in .45 and I have a Lightweight Commander in 9mm but I never carry it.
At anyrate, I don't care about the stats and write up's; on non human animals at least, I have shot everything from Armadillo's to 1000 lb cattle, and the 40 cal seems to kill better then the 9mm to me. I recon other people's mileage will vary.
The 9mm works better for a smaller sized gun. But when chambered in a full sized gun, my choice is the 40 over the 9, example Glock 17 vs 22. I own 2 or 3 of both and I will choose the 40 every time, personally. Drop on down to a 19 vs 23 then I would prefer the 9mm model 19 over the 23. But If I am going to drop down from a G22, I am just going to go ahead and go to a Smith and Wesson Shield or M&P Compact in 9mm.
But in all reality, I will more often than not, just split the difference and choose a Lightweight Commander in .45 and I have a Lightweight Commander in 9mm but I never carry it.
At anyrate, I don't care about the stats and write up's; on non human animals at least, I have shot everything from Armadillo's to 1000 lb cattle, and the 40 cal seems to kill better then the 9mm to me. I recon other people's mileage will vary.
I shoot about 12000 rds of pistol for my primary caliber a year. I've done hundreds of hours of instruction under former LE (mostly S.W.A.T. or other response units) and former military (usually SOF). I am well aware that there are better shooters than me, I've been on the firing line with a number of them. My point is even with all of that experience I still shoot 9mm quicker and more accurately.
I notice when it comes to 40SW there is often this underlying argument that if you're good enough the recoil won't matter. My own experience and the experience of the instructors I have had (from talking to them) would disagree. You may well have no issue shooting 40SW, but saying you don't notice any difference going to 9mm is head scratching to me.
I think there are reasons why someone would prefer 40SW. But I think the skill arguments when it comes to 9mm really should be put to bed by now.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Sleepy, but not dead. Even the wildcat NAA 450 magnum express isn't completely dead. I just found 400 factory primed Winchester cases of that. Those were mostly destroyed back in the late 80s after the original NAA was bought out and the magnum single action stainless was shelved.